KINGMAN — A Bullhead City man serving nearly a half-century in prison for molesting a teenage girl lost his appeal Tuesday.

David Salcido, 42, was convicted in July 2015 on four counts of child molestation, three counts of sexual abuse of a minor and aggravated assault. Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen sentenced Salcido a month later to about 47 years in prison.

Salcido was accused of molesting and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in July 2009 in Bullhead City.

Salcido’s appellate attorney argued that Salcido, who represented himself during the bench trial, did not knowingly waive his right to an attorney or his right to a jury trial. A bench trial is when a judge decides the verdict, not a jury.

Salcido also argued that the judge did not give him access to the law library, a better advisory counsel or a paralegal. He also argued that Jantzen was biased against him, rushing him through proceedings and seeming frustrated with the defendant throughout the trial.

Salcido also argued Jantzen erred by denying a motion to continue the trial for a week, allowing he victim’s parents to remain in the courtroom, and not allowing evidence involving the victim’s conduct.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Salcido made a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to an attorney. The judge also appointed an advisory counsel and an investigator and does not have to grant a defendant access to a law library.

The appellate court also ruled that Salcido made a voluntary and intelligent waiver of a jury trial two months before the trial. The court also found no hint of bias or misconduct by the judge and that the judge was more than patient and accommodating.

The appellate court also ruled that the judge did not err when he denied the motion to continue the trial for a week. The case had been pending for five years and Salcido had gone through three attorneys.

The court of appeals also ruled that Salcido never requested a legal assistant and never asked for another investigator. The court ruled the evidence involving the victim’s conduct was irrelevant. The court also ruled there was no error in allowing the parents of a minor to be in court.